linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 4/4] blk-mq: improve readability of blk_mq_alloc

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <79c5d83f-27b2-dbe0-826b-bcb671e0766f@kernel.dk>
Date:   Tue, 1 Nov 2022 20:25:27 -0600
From:   Jens Axboe <axboe@...nel.dk>
To:     Jinlong Chen <nickyc975@....edu.cn>, Christoph Hellwig <hch@....de>
Cc:     linux-block@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 4/4] blk-mq: improve readability of blk_mq_alloc_request()

On 11/1/22 8:19 PM, Jinlong Chen wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 01, 2022 at 11:11:37PM +0800, Jinlong Chen wrote:
>>> Add a helper blk_mq_alloc_request_nocache() to alloc request without
>>> cache. This makes blk_mq_alloc_request() more readable.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jinlong Chen <nickyc975@....edu.cn>
>>> ---
>>>  block/blk-mq.c | 47 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------------------
>>>  1 file changed, 29 insertions(+), 18 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/block/blk-mq.c b/block/blk-mq.c
>>> index 87a6348a0d0a..2fae111a42c8 100644
>>> --- a/block/blk-mq.c
>>> +++ b/block/blk-mq.c
>>> @@ -572,36 +572,47 @@ static struct request *blk_mq_alloc_cached_request(struct request_queue *q,
>>>  	return rq;
>>>  }
>>>  
>>> +static struct request *blk_mq_alloc_request_nocache(struct request_queue *q,
>>> +		blk_opf_t opf, blk_mq_req_flags_t flags)
>>
>> The name is a bit odd, but I can't think off a better one.
>>
>>> +	struct blk_mq_alloc_data data = {
>>>  			.q		= q,
>>>  			.flags		= flags,
>>>  			.cmd_flags	= opf,
>>>  			.nr_tags	= 1,
>>>  		};
>>
>> And this now has superflous indenation.  Overall, while the separate
>> helper looks marginally nicer, I'm not really sure it is worth the
>> churn.
> 
> I'll drop the patch if you think it is not worth the churn. But I
> started doing this because of the following goto statement:

Please just drop it, I don't think it's an improvement.

-- 
Jens Axboe